Ooh, unfortunately this isn’t true.

The problem we have is that law mostly defines what is right and wrong. That itself doesn’t come from nowhere of course, it comes from the collective “wisdom” of the society/crowd it applies to, which in turn is naturally susceptible to the ebbs and flow of that society’s fickle. Some societies are secular, meaning the laws tend to evolve atheistic positions, and others are less so, which in turn, follow theistic morality. In all cases, the concepts of “right” and “wrong” are thus defined by what is in essence, two inputs and a process.

One input is the existing body of law, the other input is in essence, a popularity contest.

The process is the judicial process (legislature and case law).

Hence, we may have a societal opinion about what is right and wrong, but law, which naturally applies to all members of a society, at various levels, may not see it the same way as us, not least because sub-scenarios may totally change the definition, especially in double-bind style conflicts between facets of humanity and law, as well as both the opinion and indeed, case law of a scenario, as it would apply inter-judicially.

For example, it is illegal to steal. That’s clear. However, a parent has a responsibility to feed their child. Indeed, in the U.K. If they don’t, it’s neglect. So they can be prosecuted on criminal charges for that. Hence, if a parent who is homeless with a child, can’t get emergency accommodation, spends days on the street with no money, and steals an apple to give their child, because not enough folk gave enough money, they have met their parental responsibility, but have, of course, violated common law to do it. If they didn’t, they risk losing their child to social services (arguably they would do longer term anyway in some societies) or in some societies, worse. Whichever way they turn, they violate a law. Violate what’s right. In some eyes.

This in essence, is the problem. There is no universal truth and there is no right or wrong everywhere. Even within a society. It gets worse between countries. For example, disinformation during any form of election is illegal under UN law. You are not allowed to blatantly lie to the electorate. If you do, then it is a clear breach of the principles of a free and fair election. Hence, the UN regard any such disinformation as undemocratic.

The problem is, two notable countries recently breached this last year. The UK and the USA. Each used a military disinformation company within SLC Group. However, a loophole in each country’s laws mean you can’t chase the UK organisation for interfering in the US election and can’t chase the US organisation for interfering with Brexit. At least until TTIP is signed.

So we have a situation where what was done was so obviously wrong at the UN level, yet it can’t be prosecuted under UK law, which has no jurisdiction over US law. So within the UK “nothing untoward happened” and similarly in the US. A wrong was very definitely done, but because to date, nobody has been tried, it’s all right. A murder has not happened under the rule of law until a judge/coroner says it has. You can even bring the body to the courtroom, with whatever injuries obviously caused it, with the autopsy report, but up until the coroner rules, they haven’t been murdered.

Written by

EA, Stats, Math & Code into a fizz of a biz or two. Founder: Automedi & Axelisys. Proud Manc. Citizen of the World. I’ve been busy

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store